Regional Diversity or Specialization? Ranking of Provinces According to Diversity/Specialization Levels in Manufacturing Industry

Yıl 2021, , 76 - 94, 31.05.2021

Onur Sungur , Habibe Yaman

https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.844593

Öz

Differences in regions' innovation-growth processes and the reasons behind regional diversification/specialization have recently been on the agenda of scientists and policy makers. In this regard, there are two major concepts in the Regional Science literature that have gained increasing interest in recent years. These are "regional specialization" and "regional diversification". Both concepts have various implications for innovativeness, competition, growth performance or the ability of regions to respond to crises-recessions. The purpose of this study is to determine the variety/specialization level of provinces in manufacturing industry in Turkey. Relative diversity/concentration index (Duranton-Puga Index) is calculated by using the employment data by provinces by the year of 2019. Then, by using sectoral diversity/specialization value of the provinces, provinces are ranked in the manufacturing sector. As a result of the analysis, the Duranton-Puga Index varies between 0.58 and 3.76 for 81 provinces. Index value is high in provinces such as İzmir, İstanbul, Adana, Samsun and Tekirdağ, and the concentration in these provinces is distributed to different industries. In provinces such as Hakkâri, Artvin, Siirt, Bitlis and Bayburt, it is found that employment is concentrated in certain sectors where there is not much diversification.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Regional Specialization, Regional Diversification, Manufacturing Industry, Duranton-Puga Index

Bölgesel Çeşitlilik mi Uzmanlaşma mı? İllerin İmalat Sanayinde Çeşitlilik/Uzmanlaşma Düzeylerine Göre Sıralanması

Öz

Bölgelerin inovasyon-büyüme süreçlerindeki farklılıklar ve bölgesel çeşitlenmenin/uzmanlaşmanın ardında yatan nedenlerin incelenmesi, son zamanlarda bilim insanları ve politika belirleyicilerinin gündemindedir. Bu konuda Bölge Bilimi literatüründe son yıllarda giderek artan ilgi oluşturan iki önemli ana kavram bulunmaktadır. Bunlar “bölgesel uzmanlaşma” ve “bölgesel çeşitlilik” kavramlarıdır. Her iki kavram da bölgelerin veya bölgede yer alan firmaların yenilikçilik, rekabet, büyüme performansı veya bölgelerin krizlere-resesyonlara karşı koyabilme yeteneği konusunda çeşitli çıkarımlarda bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı; Türkiye’de illerin imalat sanayi sektöründe çeşitlilik/uzmanlaşma düzeylerinin tespit edilmesidir. Bu kapsamda; iller itibariyle 2019 yılı istihdam verilerinden yararlanılarak illerin göreli çeşitlilik/yoğunlaşma endeksi (Duranton-Puga Endeksi) hesaplanmaktadır. Sektörel çeşitlilik/uzmanlaşma değerleri kullanılarak illerin sıralaması yapılmaktadır. Analiz sonucuna göre, 81 il için Duranton-Puga Endeksi 0,58 ile 3,76 arasında değişkenlik göstermektedir. İmalat sanayi sektöründe İzmir, İstanbul, Adana, Samsun, Tekirdağ gibi illerde endeks değerinin yüksek olduğu ve bu illerde istihdamın farklı sanayi kollarına dağıldığı yoğunlaşmanın az olduğu saptanmıştır. Endeks değerinde son sıralarda yer alan Hakkâri, Artvin, Siirt, Bitlis, Bayburt gibi illerde ise istihdamın çok fazla sektörde çeşitlenmediği belli sektörlerde yoğunlaştığı bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bölgesel Uzmanlaşma, Bölgesel Çeşitlilik, İmalat Sanayii, Duranton-Puga Endeksi

Kaynakça

• Aiginger, K. ve Rossi-Hansberg, E. (2006). Specialisation and concentration: a note on theory and evidence. Empirica, 33, 255-266.
• Askarany, D. ve Spraakman, G. (2020). Regional diversification and financial performance through an excess- capacity theory lens: A new explanation for mixed results. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 156, 120076.
• Babu, S. C. ve Gulati, A. (2005). Economic reforms and food security: the impact of trade and technology in South Asia. New York: Food Products Press.
• Binz, C., Truffer, B. ve Coenen, L. (2016). Path creation as a process of resource alignment and anchoring– industry formation for on-site water recycling in Beijing. Economic Geography, 92 (2), 172-200.
• Boschma, R. A. ve Frenken K. (2006). Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 6 (3), 273-302.
• Boschma, R. ve Capone, G. (2015). Institutions and diversification: related versus unrelated diversification in a varieties of capitalism framework. Research Policy 44, 1902-1914.
• Boschma, R. ve Frenken, K. (2011). Technological relatedness and regional branching.In: Bathelt, H., Feldman, M. P. ve Kogler, D. F. (eds.), Beyond Territory. Dynamic Geographies of Knowledge Creation, Diffusion and Innovation, Routledge, London and New York, 64-81.
• Boschma, R., Balland, P. A. ve Kogler, D. F. (2015). Relatedness and technological change in cities: the rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24 (1), 223-250.
• Boschma, R., Coenen, L., Frenken, K., ve Truffer, B. (2016). Towards a theory of regional diversification. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, 16, 17.
• Boschma, R., G. Heimeriks ve Balland, P. A. (2014). Scientific knowledge dynamics and relatedness in biotech cities. Research Policy 43 (1), 107-114.
• Brewer, H. L. (1985). Measures of diversification: predictors of regional economic instability. Journal of Regional Science, 25(3), 463-470.
• Broekel, T. ve Mewes, L. (2017). Analyzing the impact of R&D policy on regional diversification. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography 17.26. Utrecht University, Section of Economic Geography.
• Castaldi, C., Frenken, K. ve Los, B. (2015). Related variety, unrelated variety and technological breakthroughs: an analysis of US state-level patenting. Regional Studies, 49 (5), 767–781.
• Conroy, M. E. (1975). The concept and measurement of regional industrial diversification. Southern Economic Journal, 41(3), 492-505.
• Crespo, J., Suire R. ve Vicente J. (2014). Lock-in or lock-out? How structural properties of knowledge networks affect regional resilience. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(1), 199-219.
• Çınar, Y. ve Göksel, T. (2010). İhracatta bölgesel çeşitlendirme ve istikrar. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 65(2).
• Çiftçi, M. (2018). Türkiye’de akademik istihdamda bölgesel uzmanlaşma, akademik iş piyasası ve öğretim üyesi rotasyonu. EKEV Akademi Dergisi, 22(73), 233-262.
• Duranton, G. ve Puga D. (2000). Diversity and specialisation in cities: why, where and when does it matter? Urban Studies, 37(3), 533-555.
• Essleztbichler, J. (2015). Relatedness, industrial branching and technological cohesion in US metropolitan areas. Regional Studies 49(5), 752–766.
• Ezcurra, R., Pascual, P. ve Rapun. M. (2006). Regional specialisation in the European Union. Regional Studies, 40(6), 601-616.
• Filiztekin, A. (2008). Türkiye'de bölgesel farklar ve politikalar. TÜSİAD, Yayın No: TÜSİAD-T/2008-09/471.
• Frenken, K., Van Oort, F. G. ve Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41 (5), 685-697
• Goschin, Z., Constantin, D.L., Roman, M. ve Ilenau, B. (2009). Regional specialisation and geographic concentration of industries in Romania. South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, 1, 99-113.
• Gömleksiz, M. ve Mercan, B. (2017, 19-20 Mayıs). Endüstriyel yoğunlaşma ve uzmanlaşmanın bölgesel ekonomik büyüme üzerine etkisi: türkiye imalat sanayi üzerine bir inceleme. II. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Sempozyumu, Alanya.
• Gündem, F. ve Acar, S. (2011). Türkiye imalat sanayi'nde bölgesel uzmanlaşma (2003-2008). In Anadolu International Conference in Economics II.
• Hassink R. (2005). How to unlock regional economies from path dependency? From learning region to learning cluster. European Planning Studies, 13 (4), 521–535.
• Hidalgo, C. A., Klinger, B., Barabási, A. L. ve Hausmann, R. (2007). The product space conditions the development of nations. Science, 317(5837), 482-487.
• Jackson, R. W. (1984). An evaluation of alternative measures of regional industrial diversification. Regional Studies, 18(2), 103-112.
• Ledebur, L. (1983). Planning for local and regional development. LMI Spectrum 2, 1-3.
• Marelli, E. (2006). Specialisation and convergence of European regions. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 2, 149-178.
• Martın, R. (2010). Roepke lecture in economic geography – rethinking regional path dependence: beyond lock- in to evolution. Economic Geography 86 (1), 1-27.
• Martin R. ve Sunley P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395–437.
• Neffke F., Henning M. ve Boschma, R. (2011). How do regions diversify over time? Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography, 87(3), 237–265.
• Neffke, F., Hartog, M., Boschma, R. ve Henning, M. (2014). Agents of structural change: the role of firms and entrepreneurs in regional diversification. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography 14.10, Utrecht University.
• Özcan, S. E. ve Tuncer, G. (2015). Spatial concentration and regional diversification of public expenditures: the case of Turkey. Niğde Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 8(1) 185-198.
• Pan, W. H. ve Tsai, W. C. (2012). Internationalization, regional diversification and firm performance: the moderating effects of administrative intensity. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(18), 274-282.
• Pascal, A. ve Gurwitz A. (1983). Picking winners: industrial strategies for local economic development. The Rand Corporation, R-2932-HUD.
• Qian, G., Li, L., Li, J., ve Qian, Z. (2008). Regional diversification and firm performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2), 197-214.
• Rigby, D. (2015). Technological relatedness and knowledge space: entry and exit of US cities from patent classes. Regional Studies, 49 (11), 1922-1937.
• Simmie, J. (2012). Path dependence and new path creation in renewable energy technologies. European Planning Studies, 20, 729-731.
• Şahin, M. T. ve Altuğ, F. (2017). Türkiye’de yenilik faaliyetlerinde yenilikçi uzmanlaşma eğilimleri: İstanbul, Ankara ve İzmir bölgeleri imalat sanayi patent göstergeleri. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 15(2), 157-166.
• Şahin, M. T., Yılmaz, M. ve Varol, Ç. (2018). Türkiye'de bilgi yoğun iş hizmetlerinin (BYİH) bölgesel uzmanlaşma örüntüsü. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 58(2), 1492-1521.
• Tanner, A. N. (2014). Regional branching reconsidered: emergence of the fuel cell industry in European regions. Economic Geography, 90 (4), 403-427.
• Tanner, A. N. (2016). The emergence of new technology-based industries: the case of fuel cells and its technological relatedness to regional knowledge bases. Journal of Economic Geography, 16 (3), 611-635.
• TEPAV (2016). Bölgesel rekabet gündemlerinin tasarımı için araç seti. Ankara: T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı GAP Bölge Kalkınma İdaresi Başkanlığı.
• Tsai, H., Ren, S. ve Eisingerich, A. B. (2020). The effect of inter-and intra-regional geographic diversification strategies on firm performance in China. Management Decision, 58(1), 16-38.
• TUİK (2021). İl göstege. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/ilgosterge/?locale=tr (27.01.2021).
• Wolman, H. (1979). Making local economic development decisions: a framework for local officials. Working Paper No. 1264-01, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.